Chivalry II Status?

[Rudy727]

i was wondering [as a fan of the mod] if this is gonna be updated or a new version etc..

thanks for any responses..

[SicilianVespers]

I am planning on a minor release. This will basically be a repackaging of 3.3 including the hotfixes, and the addition of the fixes I added after the last hotfix.

Perhaps I will try to get a beta of the Charlemagne campaign in it as well.

[Morfans]

I am planning on a minor release. This will basically be a repackaging of 3.3 including the hotfixes, and the addition of the fixes I added after the last hotfix.

Perhaps I will try to get a beta of the Charlemagne campaign in it as well.

SV, could you give priority to fixes & packaging over the Charlemagne campaign ? I've not been playing Chivalry for quite some time, waiting for the necessary patches ... IMHO, old Charlie should wait for his turn.

Also, there are several teams working on IX century units these days (CBUR in particular) and you might take the opportunity of reviving the d.a. before adding another campaign. In general, d.a. seems to me still in a beta state - any plan to bring it to full maturity ?

[SicilianVespers]

Repackaging and fixes are actually the priority. I want to make it easier for players to get the mod running.

The problem with the fixes, is that I can't remember where I left off. I will have to re-read the bug thread to compile a new list.

What are the bugs you find most pressing?

[Morfans]

Repackaging and fixes are actually the priority. I want to make it easier for players to get the mod running.

The problem with the fixes, is that I can't remember where I left off. I will have to re-read the bug thread to compile a new list.

What are the bugs you find most pressing?

Have got a similar problem, after so many months - I used to keep a database with my own fixes, but can't find it any more.

However, to me the most serious bugs are those related to:

• AOR
• Hidden resources

These are bad because they can spoil your campaign and are very hard for users to "reverse engineer".

AOR is particularly unclean in the ERE area - I recall there were settlements in Anatolia in which recruitment was not right for the Romans (Sinop?). Conversely, I captured Durazzo as the Siculo-Normans and could recruit NO unit, not even local levies.

Hidden resources: there was for sure a problem with the grain exchange - in some regions, you could build multiple instances of it, screwing up the economic model. Also, religious buildings were impeded (occasionally) on newly captured settlements. Etc.

Other than the two categories above, I can't remember any serious CTD.

A number of silver surfers.

A problem with small stone walls in descr_walls.txt (siege ladders too long).


That's pretty much it.


Consider that I mainly play EE and have no interest in Renaissance, though.

In DA, there was probably an issue with Crusades launched too early and some religious modeling needed improvements (schism etc).

[SicilianVespers]

These are the issues I was most concerned with.

I believe I have already fixed the grain exchange and the missing skins mentioned after the release, but will have to play a couple campaigns to be sure.

The AOR/hidden resources are another matter. Some of that was done by design, to guide the AI in historical directions. I will have to take a good look at this.

Regarding the Darkage: I may have already disabled crusades, and I was planning to add more scripted Magyar, Viking, and Islamic raids.

I would really like to replace the vanilla unit cards as well. I have been out of the loop for some time now, has anyone release any unit cards packs or submods?

Thanks, for the feedback...

[Morfans]

Regarding the Darkage: I may have already disabled crusades, and I was planning to add more scripted Magyar, Viking, and Islamic raids.

I would really like to replace the vanilla unit cards as well. I have been out of the loop for some time now, has anyone release any unit cards packs or submods?

Really glad to see you are back !


On the units:

• For the DA, have a look at the The Great Conflict in the M2TW Mod Threads - most IX Century unit design is converging there
• EE / HE: as you may know, most Broken Crescent units are available to other mods now - particularly those of the Muslim factions (but I think ERE as well)

[SicilianVespers]

Thanks, and I didn't know BC made their units available....

I think I can confirm that the Grain Exchange bug is fixed in my Dev install. I am 70 turns into a Sicilian EE campaign, and all is well.

How frequently was the grain exchange bug happening for you? or do you know how to trigger it?

[Morfans]

How frequently was the grain exchange bug happening for you? or do you know how to trigger it?

No idea on how to trigger it - it happened to me twice, in the same Sicilian campaign. I am sure it was on captured settlements (Levante or Epirus/Greece). Hope that helps.

[SicilianVespers]

The grain exchange is definitely fixed. It only occured in castle settlements, and after you upgraded to the market.

[Morfans]

The grain exchange is definitely fixed. It only occured in castle settlements, and after you upgraded to the market.

Great!

Regarding AOR, you said in some settlements the lack of units is intentional - I see you point: in that case we might just need some sort of "AOR map" to document the global picture (but I would have anyhow left some levies to recruit in "alien" regions as well)

On packaging: because the 3.0/3.3 installation is not entirely confined in the mod folder, I occasionally experienced some clashing with other mods - strat icons/symbols were messed up (I see in the bug report thread other users reported this "bug" too).

[SicilianVespers]

Great!

Regarding AOR, you said in some settlements the lack of units is intentional - I see you point: in that case we might just need some sort of "AOR map" to document the global picture (but I would have anyhow left some levies to recruit in "alien" regions as well)

I think I misunderstood. Local levies should always be available, there must be a missing hidden resource. I will have to take a closer look.

An AOR map is a very good idea. An easy way to tell what zone you are in is by the first level levies you can build.

Arriere-Ban Levies= Western Europe/Latin
Voi Levies = Eastern Europe/Slavic
Thematic Levies = Greek
Jund Levies = Islamic
(Steppe ? - I forget the name) Levies = Steppe

At higher levels, you will get local Nobles (of some form ex. Seigneurs, iqta'dar, Zupans, Stratiotai, Boyars, etc...), and at the top two tiers your Professional and Noble immigrants will show up.

On packaging: because the 3.0/3.3 installation is not entirely confined in the mod folder, I occasionally experienced some clashing with other mods - strat icons/symbols were messed up (I see in the bug report thread other users reported this "bug" too).

This is strange. I have a separate SicilianVespers folder in the main data folder that houses everything, with the exception of the vanilla SD files (these files need to exist in the data ui folder, or it causes problems) out of memory, or something like that. I don't think it matters what mod they are from, they just need to be present.

This may be the result of another mod that doesn't use a separate data folder, but I will take a look.

[Morfans]

This is strange. I have a separate SicilianVespers folder in the main data folder that houses everything, with the exception of the vanilla SD files.

I suspect it's the shared.sd / strategy.sd - if another mod overwrites them and symbols/factions don't match ... Is that possible ?

On AOR: the scheme is clear enough.

Yes, I am (90%) sure: as the Sicilians, I could not recruit any unit in Durazzo (i.e. I could not recruit levies either).

[SicilianVespers]

I suspect it's the shared.sd / strategy.sd - if another mod overwrites them and symbols/factions don't match ... Is that possible ?

I think the likely culprit is mods putting their "main\data" modded files directly into the M2TW\data folder, rather than a M2TW\Data\modfolder. I believe the mods that do this could cause conflicts. I know SS and BC both do this.

On AOR: the scheme is clear enough.

Yes, I am (90%) sure: as the Sicilians, I could not recruit any unit in Durazzo (i.e. I could not recruit levies either).

I can confirm that the Sicilian can recruit in Durazzo (early era), so I must have addressed this before the break in development. What era was this in?

Regarding AOR recruitment in Anatolia, I am in the process of adding a separate Anatolia AOR zone. The levy units are as follows:

Anatolian Levies (BC model)
Anatolian Archers (BC model)
Anatolian Cavalry (ex. Mounted Akritai CBUR model) - Anatolian Stratiotai in the Darkage campaign

Armenian Cavalry and Anatolian (or Armenian) Akritai are also included.

I found it very odd to see stacks of Jund levies in the Armenian army.

On a side note, I plan to revitalize the Islamic faction with the BC units. I have already started on the Turks, and Armenians. Will get to Egypt and the Moors next.

[SicilianVespers]

You should do the AAR, I'd like to see it....

[SicilianVespers]

Thread title renamed.

[SicilianVespers]

Nice...and Thanks! does this allow the small faction to become strong enough to defend themselves?

I will have to rty it, and see how the campaign progresses!

[Morfans]

Nice...and Thanks! does this allow the small faction to become strong enough to defend themselves?

Hmm, I can't actually say.

I have always played it with CAI's that trigger vassalage well before the AI faction is annihilated by lack of military units (which is more historically accurate to me ...) - for instance, I play SV with theSavage's CAI ...

All I can say about this script:

• Small factions are rarely destroyed and, when that happens, it is generally by the extinction of the family members, not by lack of military units
• The script adjusts the King's purse to the faction spending, so "fortified" small factions have higher chances to recruit many units and counter invasions by military might.

[SicilianVespers]

Hmm, I can't actually say.

I have always played it with CAI's that trigger vassalage well before the AI faction is annihilated by lack of military units (which is more historically accurate to me ...) - for instance, I play SV with theSavage's CAI ...

I need to try this!

Did you have to make any modifications to theSavage's CAI, to make it work with ChivII? You should post it as a minimod.

All I can say about this script:

• Small factions are rarely destroyed and, when that happens, it is generally by the extinction of the family members, not by lack of military units
• The script adjusts the King's purse to the faction spending, so "fortified" small factions have higher chances to recruit many units and counter invasions by military might.

This all siounds great, I will try to test them before the next release. I have never been happy with the vassalage situation, etc...

[Morfans]

Did you have to make any modifications to theSavage's CAI, to make it work with ChivII? You should post it as a minimod.

I modified some sections of the descr_faction_standing.txt, the rest is unchanged.

In fact, I had to do it again when I restarted SV recently (I lost my old SV "package") - I think I remember what I did and my Rus EE campaign seems to be OK, but perhaps I should test my present tweaks on a more diplomatically challenging Catholic faction, before posting it. Maybe the Sicilian, for a change ...

One question: the original CAI (I think it is XAI 3.x) moderates intra-religious conflicts and inter-religious alliances. Personally, I think this is somewhat ahistorical and prefer the Savage's approach of leaving more freedom - although I admit sometimes you can come across some wierd case (excommunicated HRE allied to the Seljuks ?!?). Do you think XAI's approach is better to Chivalry ? Should we keep it ?

In terms of vassalage model, theSavage is definitely more adequate.